If Science Teachers Are Positively Inclined Toward Inclusive Education, Why Is It So Difficult?

Abstract

This paper describes the unique challenges that students with learning disabilities (LD) experience in science studies and addresses the question of the extent to which science teachers are willing and prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms. We employed the theory of planned behavior (TPB), according to which behavioral intentions are a function of individuals’ attitudes toward the behavior, their subjective norms, and their perceived control—i.e., their perception of the simplicity and benefits of performing the behavior. The study comprised 215 junior high school science teachers, who answered a TPB-based quantitative questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to support and enrich the findings and conclusions. We found that teachers held positive attitudes and were willing to adapt their teaching methods (perceived control), which correlated and contributed to their behavioral intention. In terms of subjective norms, however, they felt a lack of support and ongoing guidance in providing the appropriate pedagogy to meet the needs of students with LD. We therefore recommend that educational policy makers and school management devote attention and resources to providing professional training and appropriate instructional materials and to establishing frameworks for meaningful cooperation between the science teachers and special education staff. This could ensure the efficient cooperation and coordination of all the involved parties and send a positive message of support to the science teachers who are the actual implementers of change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Bachkman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: a view from the classroom. Science & Education, 23(9), 1911–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: a project of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2010). Future of the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Future-of-the-Internet-IV.aspx

  8. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) (2011). Guide to the National Quality Standards. Canberra: ACECQA. Available at: http://acecqa.gov.au/Uploads/files/National%20Quality%20Framework%20Resources%20Kit/2-DE_03_National%20Quality%20Standard_v8_Secn1.pdf

  9. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Atwood, R. K., & Oldham, B. R. (1985). Teacher’s perceptions of mainstreaming in an inquiry oriented elementary science program. Science Education, 69, 619–624.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277–293.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ballone, L. M., & Czerniak, C. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 4–29 Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED463146.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, Seattle, April, 2001.

  15. Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstreaming—implementing effective instruction for students with learning-disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87–94.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bennett, J. (2007). Science talking: the research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. York: University of York, Department of Educational Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Biddle, S. (2006). Attitudes in education. The Science Teacher, 73(3), 52–56 Available at: https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-146082751/attitudes-in-education.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Boyle, J. R. (2010). Note-taking skills of middle school students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 530–540.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions for children’s difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 527–544.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: a theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bryant, D. P. (2003). Promoting effective instruction for struggling secondary students: introduction to the special issue. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 70–71.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cagran, B., & Schmidt, M. (2011). Attitudes of Slovene teachers towards the inclusion of pupils with different types of special needs in primary school. Educational Studies, 37(2), 171–195.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cawley, J. F., Foley, T. E., & Miller, J. (2003). Science and students with mild disabilities: principles of universal design. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3), 160–171.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cawley, J. F., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Krooczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 428–435.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen, A., & Lazer, Y. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of students according to categories of the exceptionality and severity and the perception of their abilities to cope with these students in the inclusive classroom. Topics in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 19(2), 95–105 (in Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cologon, K. (2015). Inclusion in education: towards equality for students with disability. Australia: Children with Disability Available at: http://apo.org.au/resource/inclusion-education-towards-equality-students-disability.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Common Core State Standards Initiative, (CCSS) (2010). Common core state standards: preparing America’s students for college and career. Retrieved from: http:// www.corestandards.org

  30. Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 230–238.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods procedures. In J. W. Creswell (Ed.), Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, (p. 203–224). Sage publications.

  33. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Second edition. Available at: http://doc1.lbfl.li/aca/FLMF022364.pdf

  34. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.

    Google Scholar 

  35. DeBoer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  36. DePoy, E., & Gibson, S. (2008). Disability studies: origins, current conflict, and resolution. Review of Disability Studies, 4(4), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dori, Y.,. J., Tal, R.,. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies—can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ehren, B. J., Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Enhancing literacy proficiency in adolescents and young adults. In A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 600–625). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. El-Dor, Y. (2014). Ministry of Education policy on learning disabilities—a status report with a view of the past and future. Mifgash – Journal for Social Educational Work, 39, 255–270 (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), (2015). Available at: http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

  41. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Increasing the relevance of science and technology education for all students in the 21st century. Science Education International, 15(1), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549–580.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: what, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2010). Presage of a paradigm shift: beyond the social model of disability toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19(6), 585–600.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Galyam, N., & Grange, L. (2003). Teaching thinking skills in science to learners with special needs. International Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 84–94.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Greer, B., & Greer, J. (1995). Questions and answers about inclusion: what every teacher should know. Clearing House, 68, 339–342.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Pullen, P. (2012). Exceptional learners: an introduction to special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S., & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy and classroom practice: a review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK and the United States, 1998–2008. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R.P., & Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf

  52. Hendley, D., Stables, S., & Stables, A. (1996). Pupils’ subject preferences at key stage 3 in South Wales. Educational Studies, 22, 177–187.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hogan, A., McLellan, L., & Bauman, A. (2000). Health promotion needs of young people with disabilities: a population study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22, 352–357.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hwang, W. Y., Chen, N. S., Dung, J. J., & Yang, Y. L. (2007). Multiple representation skills and creativity effects on mathematical problem solving using a multimedia whiteboard system. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Israel Ministry of Education (2007). Learning disabilities and learning difficulties: definition and principles for diagnosis and treatment. CEO Circular D. Jerusalem: Ministry of Culture and Education (in Hebrew).

  57. Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) (1997). Retrieved from: http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/idea/pl105-17.pdf

  58. Idol, L. (1997). Key questions related to building collaborative and inclusive schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 384–394.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial studies. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 279–292.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Choutka, C. M., & Treadway, P. S. (2002). A collaborative approach to planning in the content areas for students with learning disabilities: accessing the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4), 252–267.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Johnson, R.,. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. American Educational Research Association, 33(7), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2004). Primary teachers’ changing attitudes and cognition during a two-year science in-service programme and their effect on pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1787–1811.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kahn, S & Lewis, A,R. (2013). Survey on teaching science to K-12 students with learning disabilities: teachers preparedness and attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education. Charleston. SC.

  64. Kapanadze, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Supporting reform in science education in central and eastern Europe—reflections and perspectives from the project TEMPUS-SALiS. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(1), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kenneth, K. A., Spaulding, L. S., & Beam, A. P. (2009). A time to define: making the specific learning disability definition prescribe specific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  66. King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 79–103.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kinsella, W., & Senior, J. (2008). Developing inclusive schools: a systematic approach. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12, 65–651.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Krawec, J., Huang, J., Montague, M., Kressler, B., & De Alba, A. M. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on knowledge of math problem-solving processes of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 277–302.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lifshitz, H., & Naor, M. (2001). Student-teachers’ willingness to mainstream pupils with special needs in relation to track and severity of the disability. In Hebrew. Megamot, 41, 373–394.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Lerner, J. W., & Johns, B. H. (2012). Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  78. McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: theory, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  79. MacFarlane, L., & Woolfson, M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  80. McGinnis, J. R., & Kahn, S. A. M. I. (2014). Special needs and talents in science learning. In: G. N. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.) Handbook of research on science education, 2, 223–245.

    Google Scholar 

  81. McGinnis, J. R., & Stefanich, G. P. (2007). Special needs and talents in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research in science education (pp. 287–318). Lawrence Erlbaum Press: New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Margalit, M. (2000). Learning disability in class, educational dilemmas in the new reality, implications in teacher training and advanced courses. Tel-Aviv: Mofet Publishing (in Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Boon, R., & Carter, K. B. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learning in science: constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. (2003). Reading comprehension for secondary students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mantzicopoulos, P., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S. (1998). A place where living things affect and depend on each other: qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82(2), 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., et al. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 130–137.

    Google Scholar 

  87. McDougall, J., DeWit, D. J., King, K., Miller, L. M., & Killip, S. (2004). High school aged youths’ attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: the role of school and student. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(3), 287–313.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Moller, B., & Wahl, E. (2000). Appendix E; Science for all: including each student. In NSTA Pathways to the science standards (pp. 147-160): NSTA.

  89. Moon, N. W., Todd, R. L., Morton, D., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): findings from research and practice for middle grades through university education. Atlanta: Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute for Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Nagle, K., Marder, C., & Schiller, E. (2009). Research in disabilities education program evaluation: study 1 methods and results. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Joint Committee of Learning Disabilities Perspectives. The International Dyslexia Association, 23(4), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  91. NCLB – No Child Left Behind. (2002). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, no child left behind. Washington, D.C: A Desktop Reference 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  92. National Joint Committee of Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). (1994). Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  93. National science education standards (NRC). (1996). National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: survey results. Science Education, 82(127), 146.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  96. OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Retrieved from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf

  97. OECD (2016). “PISA 2015 Science Framework”, in PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264255425-3-en

  98. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections (a report to the Nuffield Foundation). London: the Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.pollen-europa.net/pollen dev/Images Editor/Nuffield report.pdf.

  99. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Patton, J. R., & Andre, K. E. (1989). Individualizing for science and social studied. In J. Wood (Ed.), Mainstreaming: a practical approach for teachers (pp. 301–351). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., Nanty, I., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Metacognition and low achievement in mathematics: the effect of training in the use of metacognitive skills to solve mathematical word problems. Thiking & Reasonink, 16(3), 198–220.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Schibeci, R., & Lee, L. (2003). Portrayals of science and scientists, and ‘science for citizenship’. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Science Council Declaration on Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (2014). Avalable at: http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/our-governance/

  106. Scruggs, T. E., Brigham, F. J., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2013). Common core science standards: implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 92–416.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: a qualitative study of 3 reputational cases. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 785–811.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/ inclusion, 1958–1995: a research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Sharma, U., Loreman, T. T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Shechtman, Z., & Leichtentritt, J. (2004). Affective teaching: a method to enhance classroom management. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(3), 323–333.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Shkedi, A. (2004). Second-order theoretical analysis: a method for constructing theoretical explanation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(5), 627–646.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Smith, M. K., & Smith, K. E. (2000). I believe in inclusion, but ... : regular education early childhood teachers’ perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(2), 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effect in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–387.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Steele, M. (2005). Teaching science to middle school students with learning problems. Science Scope, 29(2), 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on intervention for adolescent with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 331–348.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Teo, T. (2015). Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers’ acceptance of technology: assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 83, 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Thomas, G. P. (2011). Metacognition in science education: past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 131–144). Springer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Tosun, T. (2000). The impact of prior science course experience and achievement on the science teaching self-efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Trundle, K (2007). Inquiry-based science instruction for students with disabilities. In J. Luft., R.L Bell, & J.Gess-Newsome. (Ed). Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting. Chp. 7. NSTA press.

  123. van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., van Der Molen, J. H. W., & Asma, L. J. F. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: a new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96, 158–182.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 140–147.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Victor, E., & Kellough, R. D. (1997). Science for the elementary and middle school (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prantice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Villanueva, M. G., & Hand, B. (2011). Science for all: engaging students with special needs in and about science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 233–240.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Weinburgh, M. (2007). The effect of Tenebrio obscurus on elementary preservice teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 801–815.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Wigle, S. E., & Wilcox, D. (1996). Inclusion: criteria for the preparation of education personnel. Remedial and Special Education, 17(5), 323–328.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Zint, M. (2002). Comparing three attitude-behavior theories for predicting science teachers’ intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 819–844.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ornit Spektor-Levy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spektor-Levy, O., Yifrach, M. If Science Teachers Are Positively Inclined Toward Inclusive Education, Why Is It So Difficult?. Res Sci Educ 49, 737–766 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9636-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Science education
  • Inclusion
  • Learning disabilities
  • Teachers’ perceptions
  • Theory of planned behavior